The Nevada state legislature’s proposed bill aimed at publicly outing online poker players who have cheated or violated rules has been significantly altered following the first hearing on the bill, which took place on April 5. Assembly Bill 380 (AB 380), which originally proposed creating a public “black book” of banned or suspended players, has been softened due to amendments made by the bill’s original drafter.
The amendment, which was already in the works before the April 5 hearing, removes almost all of the provisions that would have made public the identity of players banned from Nevada-regulated online poker sites. Currently, the only such site is Caesars-owned WSOP.com.
Pushback from Caesars: Caesars executives voiced concerns during the April 5 hearing, arguing that AB 380, if passed, would impose a significant burden on the company. This burden could include time-consuming and expensive litigation if players were to sue Caesars for being wrongly accused of cheating. However, Caesars did not address the issue that players who have already been victims of cheating on the site are not receiving refunds or adjusted payouts, nor do they have an effective legal means to recover their losses from illicit players.
Provisions of the Amendment: The amendments to AB 380 bring several key changes:
-
Removal of the “cheating” requirement: The list of banned or suspended players will now be based on account status rather than specifically on cheating. The amended language states that the list will include players who have been suspended or banned for reasons related to their account status, without reference to cheating.
-
No real names or birthdates: The original proposal called for the release of a player’s full name and date of birth. The amendment removes this requirement, stating that only the player’s screen name will be released.
-
Activity threshold: The amendment stipulates that only accounts with activity greater than $1,000 in deposits or transactions in a given month will be listed. This limits the scope of the public listing to higher-value accounts, potentially reducing the number of players affected.
-
Removed references to “cheating”: Any references to players being banned for “cheating” have been eliminated from the language of the bill, now focusing purely on account status and activity.
The amendment was drafted before the April 5 hearing but was not officially published on Nevada’s legislative portal until earlier this week.
Support for Transparency: While the softened language may reduce the level of public exposure for banned players, it is unclear whether this still satisfies the need for transparency as advocated by Nevada Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, a supporter of AB 380. As of now, the amendment appears to address Caesars’ concerns, ensuring that banned players are not fully “outed” in public.
For the moment, Caesars seems to have succeeded in minimizing the public disclosure of banned player identities, though the situation could evolve if additional amendments or bills on the topic arise.
